I guarantee politicians supporting this bill are against any sort of alteration of the Constitution that would affect a citizens right to bear arms. But all for a bill because the Amendment is dated? So change the Constitution for the better of political constituents?

what does the right to bear arms have to do with hundreds of thousands of people collecting welfare, only because they had a baby delivered on american soil? this amendment was created so that slaves who had children here could become american citizens. yeah, I think this amendment is a bit dated.

I honestly hope this is just a start. The taxpayers are getting very tired of supporting those who simply do not want to work or contribute to society. We see our earnings take a nose dive every year and our standard of living going with it. Meanwhile, there are more and more folks bellying up to the government (supported by you and I) trough. It's amazing. Someone can come to this country, never paid a dime to social security or taxes, and collect disability! Wow! The main thing that bugs me is that they know how to work the system better than the people who created it!

Train, it has nothing to do with it. It has to do with politicians altering the fabric of the US government to win votes in elections. You say this amendment is dated, what stops the next guy from saying the 1st Amendment is dated? Of course, what do you expect from the state that gave us John McCain?

I could understand a status quo if this was not such a HUGE problem. The Mexicans know US laws and they exploit them-period. Two of my receptionists are Mexican, straight from the border run. They are now naturalized, productive, and proud citizens. They hear all their neighbors and friends talk constantly about the exploitation of our laws. It infuriates them as it should infuriate us.
The times have changed and we DO need some changes with our founding principles to reflect a more current societal view.

Cliff, I believe that something needs to be done about illegal immigration, I do not agree with this law.

Capitalism and our form of government (which is a republic, not a democracy) ensures that the rich (rich, not wealthy) and powerful will always rule this country. I find it crazy that the same people inking these laws have illegals as their nanny's, landscapers, etc.

I also do not believe that citizens need to own an arsenal that is capable of outfitting a small army. I have no problem with people owning a hunting rifle or shotgun or a handgun for defense. But if a politician argues that some sort of gun control is necessary, they are immediately attacked by the NRA or citizens claiming their constitutional rights are being violated.

It is the same hypocritical arguments that the "so-called Christians" make when they deem which portions of the bible are applicable and those that aren't.

They should just make it a law that you will still be deported even if you're child is an American citizen, just the child won't be. They are then given the option to take the child with them or put it into foster care here in the states. But make it so that just because the baby is American, it doesn't mean that the illegal parents can stay.

Yeah I realized that roughly 30 minutes after I posted that, afterrrrrrr the edit period ends, haha. There are too many people on here who are on either side of the table with the same names, I just can't keep track of all you!

The proposed law is something that will have to be interpreted by the supreme court. They're the only ones who can legitimately strike it down, because it could be argued that the citizenship rights are only given if they were born here to legal citizens/legal visitors, not people who were in the nation illegally. Since slaves were here "legally," it was fair game to write the amendment like that, but as for illegal people, then yeah.

As for other Constitutional Amendments, they're constantly being reinterpreted to change the way that they effect us as part of the idea of the "living Constitution." Basically, interpreting the 14th in this way would just be continuing in the tradition of a living constitution, adjusting it as times change and issues change.

"As for other Constitutional Amendments, they're constantly being reinterpreted to change the way that they effect us as part of the idea of the "living Constitution." Basically, interpreting the 14th in this way would just be continuing in the tradition of a living constitution, adjusting it as times change and issues change."

That is a seriously misguided statement and the Supreme Court does not hand down rulings on Constitutionality because of the "times". Constitutional rights are guaranteed to all US citizens.

Um, jeremy, they've been doing it for years. Did you miss the memo about a living constitution? Or did you not read your boy Obama's position? He even says in his book the Audacity of Hope how he thinks that it has to be reinterpreted based on changing times.

I think you have it backwards. The supreme court would have to uphold a law like that, not overturn it. It would be illegal / invalid until someone took a court case all the way to the supreme court and it was upheld at the supreme court level. And I dont see this one ever getting past the first appeal. I say first appeal becasue it "might" get out of an Arizona district court. I dont see any way that the supreme court would even decide to hear a case like that.

I think AZ is on the right track and OK is starting to do the same. The fed is out of control both dems and republicans are all but useless . The last chance we have to stop this nonsense is in November . VOTE THE INCUMBANTS OUT!! We need new leadership without all the backroom deals . If your not liking the hope and change we have now then send a message and vote.

Nick, in cases of Constitutional rights, the Constitution always wins. A "living document" simply means it still has applications to our lives today, not simply a piece of historical memorabilia. A ruling from the Supreme Court on this bill would simply be to uphold or overturn an appeal of a lower-level court and to determine if the ruling violated the Constitution.